-------"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Eminent British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle reminds us of the well-known mathematical fact that "even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup" the chance of producing the basic enzymes of life by random processes without intelligent direction would be approximately one in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. In other words, it couldnt happen--ever! Says Hoyle, "Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [sequence] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival." Why then is this completely impossible theory still honored? Hoyle accuses the evolutionists of defending a religious faith:

"The situation [mathematical impossibility] is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory... Most scientists still cling to Darwinism because of its grip on the educational system....You either have to believe the concepts, or you will be branded a heretic."

-------No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.

This reminds me of an story I heard. Suppose two survivors of a ship that sank have drifted for days in a life raft across the South Pacific and at last are washed ashore on an island. Their great hope, of course, is that the island is inhabited so they can find food, medical attention, and a means of returning to their distant homes. Pushing their way into the jungle, they suddenly come upon an automated factory operating full tilt. Though no person is visible, products are being manufactured, packaged, and labeled for shipping. One of the parties exclaims, "Praise God! The island is inhabited! Someone must have made and oversees this factory!" "You're crazy," replies his companion. "You've been out in the sun too long. There's absolutely no reason to believe that this thing was designed and put together by some intelligent being. It happened by chance over who knows how many billions of years." The first man looks down at his feet and sees a watch with a broken wristband lying in the dirt. Again he exclaims, "Look! A watch! This proves the island's inhabited!" "You've got to be kidding," retorts his companion. "That thing is just a conglomeration of atoms that happend to come together in that form by chance plus billions of years of random selection." No person in his right mind could imagine that a factory or a watch could just happen by chance. Then how could any rational person insist that the universe came into existence by chance, much less that the complex life forms on earth did so! A single cell in a leaf or in an animal's body is thousands of times more complex than the factory and the watch put together.

(Edited by Sakata 10/11/2002 at 9:19 PM).

-------No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.

10 with 40,000 zeros after it. long odds. but in an infinite universe, those odds are met a billion times over. as opposed to ure example, where we have a 1:4000etc. chance being placed over maybe 1000 islands in the pacific. its really no comparison.

-------"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Yeah the whole infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters thing, I've heard it before. And I'm going to expose my ignorance and ask how we know the universe is infinite. I've always wondered how this was possibly provable.

-------"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

its not provable either way, but at least calling it infinite means we don't have to answer the question "what's beyond the end of the universe?"

-------"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Oh, and isn't the definition of the universe just everything? So by definition the universe can't end, because whatever is outside the universe is something and therefore part of the universe? Actually, the real question is what the definition of "universe" is, so we can determine how something falls outside of it.

-------"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

sakata, i know i already said something like this in a earlier post on the gay rights thread. the watch and factory is just as easily explainable by the "infinite (multiple chain of) universes" theory as people on this thread have said. how can you cite it as evidence for God? There is an equal chance that it is explained by infinite chain of universes as it is by an infinite being, so why choose one over the other to believe in? The only logical, honest thing to say is, "It's a toss up. I don't know" and be agnostic (and certainly not to go so far as to believe you know not only that there is a God, but also presume to know specifically what that God is, what his values are, etc. Even if a watch, factory on island example shows there is a God (which it doesn't), how does it show a Christian God?

I was reading quite a few of these posts and I came across the word "universe" many times. Let's break this word apart:

uni ---- oneverse ---- set of words

Therefore 'universe' means one set of words. Nowhere in the big bang or anywhere else is there anyone speaking or writing or anything. Only in Creation, when God said, "Let there be light" did the universe begin to come into being. And if scientists supposedly "know" that Creation didn't occur, then why haven't they changed the name of the large expanse we live in to "bangerific" or something else? As it is, every time they refer to the universe they proclaim that there were words spoken by a higher being, which points to how everything came to be.

Ah, another Hovind afficianado! Sad, that a fraud like that can dupe so many and still be considered a "christian". Are you aware that even other creationists are disowning Hovind?

You do realize that the English language is a mish mash of French, german, and old/middle enlish, right?

from dictionary.com:

[Middle English, from Old French univers, from Latin niversum, from neuter of niversus, whole : nus, one; see oi-no- in Indo-European Roots + versus, past participle of vertere, to turn; see wer-2 in Indo-European Roots.]

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10 to the 50th power means "zero probability".

So the probability of the human eye developing by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power? No wait - that's the probability of the smallest single cell forming - so something with the complexity of a human eye would be orders of magnatude greater? WOW!

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10 to the 50th power means "zero probability".

So the probability of the human eye developing by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power?

If you were in a class I was teaching, you would get zero credit without showing your work.

Plagarizing gets you expelled.

(Edited by Apoapsis 4/13/2004 at 5:41 PM).

-------Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics? Lester: No

Even non-creationists (e.g. the mathematician and cosmologist, Sir Fred Hoyle) put the probability for the formation of the most basic of cells by natural processes at (at best) 1 in 10^40,000 — that’s a number one with 40,000 zeros after it! Even this assumes all the ingredients are present, which is impossible! Now, if every atom in the universe were an experiment repeated every millisecond for the 15 billion years age of the universe commonly claimed by evolutionists, how does that affect the probability? It is now about 1 in 10^3900. So, when such improbable events are being discussed, the number of conceivable experiments has little effect on the matter. It is usually agreed that something with odds of less than 1 in 10^50 will never happen. In other words, the origin of life without a Creator is as impossible as it is impossible to be![/tab]

That means 60^20 possible combinations which is over 1 in 10^35. Assuming 5 billion women get pregnant every 9 months for 1 billion years, the probability of just one human baby forming by chance is about 54842376600944640 to one. This conclusively proves childbirth is impossible.

Snowflakes require a high ammount of order, and a low ammount of information. Repetitiveness can give you order.

Take piece of ice and break it into many pieces, what do you have? A whole bunch of smaller ice pieces identical in structure. Take a person and break them into many peices - what do you have? A dead person.

Does everyone here know that a cell cannotbe created,niether can it come into existence,by itself?Those who think a cell can come into existence,by itself should take basic college in the probability & statistics classes.

Does everyone here know that a cell cannotbe created,niether can it come into existence,by itself?Those who think a cell can come into existence,by itself should take basic college in the probability & statistics classes.

Speaking of probablility, what are the odds of you winning the lottery? Now, what are the odds of someone winning the lottery?

-------"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov

A recent article in Science outlined the first comprehensive theory of the formation of self reproducing cells, work is advancing on this front at a very fast rate.

Those who think a cell can come into existence, by itself should take basic college in the probability & statistics classes.

I have, several in fact, have you? Certainly nothing in them that would preclude chemistry.

-------Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics? Lester: No

What are the chances of me convincing the religious public to embark on a journey into space to prove that people who believe the universe is infinite, are in fact incorrect. They could then return after their short trip and gloat! Surely it would be worth it!?!

I don't mind saying I know very little about mathematics, but there were some interesting examples above that don't seem to be disputing what they claim?

Could someone clarify this for me...How can a "random chance" be impossible?

If it is statistically possible for an event to occur, no matter how ridiculous the odds, do we refer to it as "practically impossible", or "absolutely impossible". If it is the former, then obviously we can't rule it out.

Surely we're not saying that a zero probability is equivalent to a 100% impossibility.

Quote from Guest at 11:44 AM on October 11, 2002 :how can darwinists explain the evoulation of human eye?

Easily. There are very primitive versions of eyes in many organisms, and they're better than nothing. There are slightly more adapted versions, and they're marginally better. At every step along the way, the partial eye is better than nothing, and a small change would make it better. You figure it out.

Obviously people haven't heard of cumulative evolution. I have met some rather mentally challenged people who thought the human eye popped into existence when before there was nothing.

Needless to say, the eye did evolve, so any odds game is so trivially pointless that it's not worth my wasting data bits responding to it. Instead I'll just bring up the fact that cumulative mutation occurs at the molecular level that affects morphology from basic proteins to whole organs and that intermediates between our eye and photosensitive cells exist as do superior versions to our eyes (e.g. the squid's).

-------"An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations encountered just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop."-Iain M. Banks, Excession

Researchers provide concrete evidence about how the human eye evolvedWhen Darwin's skeptics attack his theory of evolution, they often focus on the eye. Darwin himself confessed that it was 'absurd' to propose that the human eye, an 'organ of extreme perfection and complication' evolved through spontaneous mutation and natural selection. But he also reasoned that "if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist" then this difficulty should be overcome. Scientists at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory [EMBL] have now tackled Darwin's major challenge in an evolutionary study published this week in the journal Science. They have elucidated the evolutionary origin of the human eye.

Researchers in the laboratories of Detlev Arendt and Jochen Wittbrodt have discovered that the light-sensitive cells of our eyes, the rods and cones, are of unexpected evolutionary origin ¬ they come from an ancient population of light-sensitive cells that were initially located in the brain.

"It is not surprising that cells of human eyes come from the brain. We still have light-sensitive cells in our brains today which detect light and influence our daily rhythms of activity," explains Wittbrodt. "Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision."

The scientists discovered that two types of light-sensitive cells existed in our early animal ancestors: rhabdomeric and ciliary. In most animals, rhabdomeric cells became part of the eyes, and ciliary cells remained embedded in the brain. But the evolution of the human eye is peculiar ¬ it is the ciliary cells that were recruited for vision which eventually gave rise to the rods and cones of the retina.

So how did EMBL researchers finally trace the evolution of the eye?

By studying a 'living fossil,' Platynereis dumerilii, a marine worm that still resembles early ancestors that lived up to 600 million years ago. Arendt had seen pictures of this worm's brain taken by researcher Adriaan Dorresteijn [University of Mainz, Germany]. "When I saw these pictures, I noticed that the shape of the cells in the worm°s brain resembled the rods and cones in the human eye. I was immediately intrigued by the idea that both of these light-sensitive cells may have the same evolutionary origin."

To test this hypothesis, Arendt and Wittbrodt used a new tool for today°s evolutionary biologists – 'molecular fingerprints'. Such a fingerprint is a unique combination of molecules that is found in a specific cell. He explains that if cells between species have matching molecular fingerprints, then the cells are very likely to share a common ancestor cell.

Scientist Kristin Tessmar-Raible provided the crucial evidence to support Arendt's hypothesis. With the help of EMBL researcher Heidi Snyman, she determined the molecular fingerprint of the cells in the worm's brain. She found an opsin, a light-sensitive molecule, in the worm that strikingly resembled the opsin in the vertebrate rods and cones. "When I saw this vertebrate-type molecule active in the cells of the Playtnereis brain – it was clear that these cells and the vertebrate rods and cones shared a molecular fingerprint. This was concrete evidence of common evolutionary origin. We had finally solved one of the big mysteries in human eye evolution."

Satisfied? Though anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of evolution and its basis would be able to give a theoretical explanation, there's the evidential case for it. Though if I know creationists (and I do, believe me!) they'll reject it out of hand, revealing their emotional, rather than logical or evidential basis.

There are multiple types of eyes on earth, showing that nature can design something for the same essential use in several different manners, the idea that such things are impossible is not based in reality.

Quote from Sakata at 6:33 PM on October 13, 2002 :or that God created us, you decide...

How? Breathed on clay? You think THAT is the explanation? Here's the clincher: science takes the facts; what living things are made from, how they continue existing, what changes, what stays the same, and so forth, and then from these components draw up a blueprint for what naturally happens. Now, could you show me the chemical blueprint you've drawn up for clay+breath = full grown humans?

antievokid in human evolution what came first the liver and kidneys or the stomach???

none of the three can operate without the other two, and if they could why do people always need kidney transplants.

This argument is called irreducible complexity. Well, just because something is "irreducibly complex" it does not somehow ban it from being the product of evolution.

I mean, think about it, if humanity's tastes became so accustomed to tomato ketchup that we could no longer eat without it, it would not mean that tomato ketchup was required in the beginning.

evolutionist say the we aquire things as we need them.

No, evolution says that the preexisting parts change and in some cases have a beneficial outcome and then later become relied upon by the future organisms.

darwin said that the birds he was watching aquired the beaks that they had to be able to eat the food they were eating.

Yes, but they didn't require that exact food source only, they adapted and exploited that food source to the full and then ended up dependent on their biological modifications from the previous model.

ex: the giraffe has a long neck and so it has a huge heart (over 2 feet in diameter) that can pump blood all the way up. did the first giraffe die from having too small of a heart??

This assumes the giraffe always had a long neck, fossil record contradicts this.

Darwin himself refuted the argument from irreducible complexity in the origin of the species<We have examples of IC evolving naturally, ask me for examples if you want.

How the modern eye came to be has nothing to do with probability. It's evolution. The most primitive eyes have only clusters of photoreceptor cells that tell from light and dark these are in simple organisms like planarians (flatworms). They don't need a very complex eye for their lifestyle. This very simple eye gradually evolved to become more complex eyes. Eyes that can see shapes. Then color as the structure evolved to be more complex as the environment of the organism demands more sensory input for a more active lifestyle.

So to assume that something as complex as the human eye is just created in one step is incorrect.

Well, I must say I'm so very happy that this "eye issue" has been resolved. In fact "Researchers provide concrete evidence about how the human eye evolved".

Of course they do. They use homology as their "concrete evidence". Oh yes, and this definitely resolves the "how" question.

Wasn't chemical homology abandoned long ago as a proof for ANYTHING. We can't just pick and choose the comparisons that work for our hypothesis. Unfortunately this is typically what the Darwinist results to when fumbling aroung for something that seemingly supports his religion.

That a similar molecule is present in a worm as in the human eye does not explain how the human eye developed. It says nothing more than that a similar molecule exists in two different terrestrial creatures. To explain how the human eye developed is to verify the validity of the proposed mechanism whereby the eye evolved. NOT to tell a nice story about how you can look at different eye structures and imagine (i.e. go to fantasy land so that your story makes sense to you) that these eye structures are connected in some way. Anyone can tell a good story.

>>Obviously people haven't heard of cumulative evolution. I have met some rather mentally challenged people who thought the human eye popped into existence when before there was nothing.

I've met some mentally challenged people as well. Cumulative evolution is the Darwinist term that connotes the following: "we really, really hope that minor stochastic changes in the genome can result in large changes even though we've never shown this". And, no, it is not my responsibility to show that major changes can't result from minor ones since evolution is not my precious. Precious....

>>Needless to say, the eye did evolve, so any odds game is so trivially pointless that it's not worth my wasting data bits responding to it.

You do say. Just wait and see: as more genetic information becomes available, it will be all about the odds game.

Please, you pick and choose and twist the facts to suit your claims. Read what is there, not what you want it to say!

"Wasn't chemical homology abandoned long ago as a proof for ANYTHING"

This isn't chemical homology, it's molecular homology! And of course chemical homology not abondoned, since all life on earth shares common chemistry, it is strong evidence that all life evovled from a common ancestor. Stop telling falsehoods! As to the unique molecular fingerprints, yes, they are also strong evidence of eye evolution. Sorry, you can't just wave them off with incorrect science.

"That a similar molecule is present in a worm as in the human eye does not explain how the human eye developed. It says nothing more than that a similar molecule exists in two different terrestrial creatures."

But there is absolutely no reason why this similar molecule exists in two terrestrial creatures except that they evovled from a common ancestor!

"NOT to tell a nice story about how you can look at different eye structures and imagine (i.e. go to fantasy land so that your story makes sense to you) that these eye structures are connected in some way. Anyone can tell a good story."

But the trick is to find evidence to back up the story. In this case we see similar structures in the worms and humans (rods and cones). Now, this by itself is remarkable but further research has yielded even stronger data, these similar structures contain unique molecules. The good story has been backed up by excellent evidence! So your claim of fantasy is destroyed.

"I've met some mentally challenged people as well. Cumulative evolution is the Darwinist term that connotes the following: "we really, really hope that minor stochastic changes in the genome can result in large changes even though we've never shown this". And, no, it is not my responsibility to show that major changes can't result from minor ones since evolution is not my precious. Precious...."

As we have seen that minor changes in HOX genes can lead to major changes in the organism, you've now been shown evidnece that you are completely wrong. So yes, it's now your responsiblity to falsify this evidence or admit you're wrong. Bet you can't do either....

>>This isn't chemical homology, it's molecular homology! And of course chemical homology not abondoned, since all life on earth shares common chemistry, it is strong evidence that all life evovled from a common ancestor. Stop telling falsehoods! As to the unique molecular fingerprints, yes, they are also strong evidence of eye evolution. Sorry, you can't just wave them off with incorrect science.

Incorrect science?! Darwinists look to homological evidence for "concrete" support of their theory. This is truly pitiful. Why don't you try to figure out whether your mechanism can even live up to its expectaiton--producing incredible changes?!

>>But there is absolutely no reason why this similar molecule exists in two terrestrial creatures except that they evovled from a common ancestor!

Oh, trust me, I can think of many reasons that are just as fanciful as evolution.

>>But the trick is to find evidence to back up the story. In this case we see similar structures in the worms and humans (rods and cones). Now, this by itself is remarkable but further research has yielded even stronger data, these similar structures contain unique molecules. The good story has been backed up by excellent evidence! So your claim of fantasy is destroyed.

Oh, more homological evidence. This is ridiculous. I surmise that a giant turtle moves around the universe stochastically and, every time he encounters the earth on his random walk, this magical turtle creates organisms on this planet. Of course, this turtle decides to make organisms with similarities since they all live on the same terrestrial ball. Great!! This explains the fossil record: we see stasis in the fossil record followed by sudden appearance. The sudden appearance is the result of the turtle's random walk bringing him into contact with the earth. Great! This explains why organisms possess similarities, but many differences as well.

Now, when I find similarities among different species it is not a surprise: I interpret the similarities in the light of my theory. Yes, and now this serves as evidence that my theory must be correct. I also find fossils that suddenly appear with no clear: in the light of my theory this completely makes sense. And now I'll use this interpretation of the data as evidence that my theory is valid.

Do you see that you must have more than a hare-brained theory that accounts for similarities?? That is why my opinion of homological evidence is so low and I push someone to evaluate THE MECHANISM.

>>As we have seen that minor changes in HOX genes can lead to major changes in the organism, you've now been shown evidnece that you are completely wrong. So yes, it's now your responsiblity to falsify this evidence or admit you're wrong. Bet you can't do either....

What? Legs growing on heads are enough to convince you? Abnormalities (deformities) caused by changes in HOX genes are enough for you? Please provide specific examples that lend some credibility to your statements. Remember that our elusive mechanism must produce NEW information at some point.

Oh, more homological evidence. This is ridiculous. I surmise that a giant turtle moves around the universe stochastically and, every time he encounters the earth on his random walk, this magical turtle creates organisms on this planet. Of course, this turtle decides to make organisms with similarities since they all live on the same terrestrial ball. Great!! This explains the fossil record: we see stasis in the fossil record followed by sudden appearance. The sudden appearance is the result of the turtle's random walk bringing him into contact with the earth. Great! This explains why organisms possess similarities, but many differences as well.

Now, when I find similarities among different species it is not a surprise: I interpret the similarities in the light of my theory. Yes, and now this serves as evidence that my theory must be correct. I also find fossils that suddenly appear with no clear: in the light of my theory this completely makes sense. And now I'll use this interpretation of the data as evidence that my theory is valid.

So explain again how the turtle causes these things so we can compare this theory to evolution. Or is it magic, the same brand of magic that God used to create everything in kinds? It's amusing that in order to try and discredit evolution you concoct an example almost exactly the same as creationism.

Do you see that you must have more than a hare-brained theory that accounts for similarities?? That is why my opinion of homological evidence is so low and I push someone to evaluate THE MECHANISM.

The mechanism predicts that organisms will share common traits from common ancestry that can be compared and contrasted to see how to get different effects the further away from divergence you go.

Darwinists look to homological evidence for "concrete" support of their theory. This is truly pitiful. Why don't you try to figure out whether your mechanism can even live up to its expectaiton--producing incredible changes?!

Forensic investigators examine various homologies for chemical identification, interesting how you throw out all forensic evidence because you think that homology isn't indicative of commonality. "These gunpowder burns are from an explosion of gunpowder-like created chemicals created by God in front of my hand and my gun at the same time! Not proof that I was shooting the weapon!" "This DNA evidence showing homology to my parents' genomes isn't proof they are my parents, why, I was created by God, suddenly without explanation! These people are just the result of a "common designer," not evidence of my ancestry." "God created those sperm in that rape victim, and even though this guy would be the obvious culprit if we assume only naturalistic explanations, we can't evaluate the evidence that way. Soem creationist on a webboard says genomic and chemical/molecular homologies aren't true proof."

Oh, trust me, I can think of many reasons that are just as fanciful as evolution.

But you can't give a mechanism for them getting there complete with the evidence for it in other instances, can you? You can only posit "magic" explanations from entities not shown to exist.

What? Legs growing on heads are enough to convince you? Abnormalities (deformities) caused by changes in HOX genes are enough for you? Please provide specific examples that lend some credibility to your statements. Remember that our elusive mechanism must produce NEW information at some point.

Define information, because that's a rather insane question to ask if you're going to go with the more obvious definition of expression of new traits.

How about if I gave examples of new interconnected genes evolving in living human memory in an evolutionary response to things that did not naturally exist prior to living human memory? Would that be proof of "new genetic information"? Yes or no, and why, please?